JUDGMENT :

R.I. Chagla, J.

1. By this Interim Application, the Applicant / Plaintiff has sought appointment of a Court Receiver in respect of the land situated at CTS 619/21B and CTS 667A/2A of village Borla, Taluka Kurla and District Mumbai Suburban as well as the project ‘Shabari Park’ being constructed on the land and the unsold units in the commercial building known as “Shabari Park” and residential building known as “Sabari Garden” (mentioned as “Shiv Garden” in the prayer) – Tower I and II including power to sell the said units by public auction or private treaty as this Court deems fit. Further, relief of injunction has been sought restraining the Defendants from disposing off, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession or creating any third party rights over and in respect of the unsold units more particularly described in Exhibit KK to the Plaint and which is hereinafter referred to as the “Suit property”. Further, relief of injunction is also sought restraining Defendants from jointly or severally taking steps in furtherance of development of the Suit land as well as injunction restraining them from in any manner prejudicing the rights of the Plaintiff under Memorandum of Understanding dated 17th April, 2018 (“MoU”).

2. The Applicant / Plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking Specific Performance of the MoU dated 17th April, 2018 entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and under which the Plaintiff claims to have purchased half of Defendant No.1’s development rights in the joint development which was being carried out by Defendant Nos.1 to 3 on their contiguous but separately owned plots of land. The Plaintiff has sought a declaration that a subsequent Deed of Exchange dated 30th August, 2019, under which the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 exchanged their plot of land for 7 commercial units constructed as part of the present development with Defendant No.3 is fraudulent, void ab initio and for cancellation of Deed of Exchange. In the alternative damages have been sought. A further declaration has been sought that payment of the amounts claimed stand charged against the unsold units in the development and on failure to make such payment to the Plaintiff, the charge be enforced by sale of the unsold units and moneys be paid over to the Plaintiff.

3. The Suit property comprises of a smaller property and larger property. The Applicant / Plaintiff is concerned with the smaller property and has claimed 50% development rights in the smaller property which has been purchased by the Applicant / Plaintiff from Defendant No.1 under the said MoU dated 17th April, 2018. The smaller property prior to the said MoU was owned by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are husband and wife and which admeasures 1161.2 sq. mtrs. and forms part of CTS No.619/21B (appears to have subsequently been numbered a 667A/2A) of village Borla situated